I don't totally disagree with Greg's characterization of "unreasonable," as
"standardized / hashtagged" changeset comments are curt (even a touch rude) if
they are not super-well-documented (widely vetted, spoken about...) as to
what's going on, and easily have the ability to hide errors or even be
potentially harmful (whether intentional or not). At the same time, John hints
that entities like a National Trust can be bureaucratic and move in those kinds
of ways. Well, yes.
OSM ("Open" being our first name) has a tradition of being transparent. I do
like the movement away from "standardized" changeset comments to those which
are "more representative." Yes, +1 there. Do better, as well as is possible
here. Really, on all aspects of participating in OSM: be proud of your
contributions here, National Trust (Olivia). OSM can be used as a bit of a
"chalkboard" (or watercolor easel or wall to be spray-painted...) when we build
things and they are under construction. Though, let's be talking to each other
and agreeing that we're using tags we understand to mean what they say and say
what they mean. It is not OSM asking a lot as we ask this, it is asking "the
right amount."
Get a path (way) or POI (node) "in" the map, first, minimally tagged (even just
highway=path or add access=no until this is figured out). Accurate,
higher-precision location is important, use (e.g. GPS) equipment to the best of
its abilities (maybe you use a 16-channel satellite receiver unit with high
trees / dense forest, for example). You can refine / enrich data in subsequent
iterations, adding access, route, safety, fee-related, resources / amenities
(water, restrooms), whatever you like later. Get "the bones" into the map
first. The muscles and skin and hairstyles happen over time.
Entities like a National Trust can use OSM for their purposes, appearing to
have a toolchain (of rangers and volunteer mappers and a comm path of
repetition and refinement there) which are on a longer-term. That's OK, in
fact it gives plenty of opportunity to explain, document, engage in dialog, et
cetera. We're here. As long as things go "good, better, best" (within a
reasonable timeframe), it's good. As the data are vetted as good, they'll get
better, that's simply how it works. (Openly, transparently). You (2nd person
plural, including Olivia) know what to do; this is small stuff. Talk to one
another, be open and better about being open...lather, rinse, repeat. I think
we're fine here.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
